Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Rannpháirtí anaithnid's voting proposal

Like many people, I think, I would like to see this process end. IMHO there is no likelihood of discussion ending on this page. I think a binding vote is the only possibility (as was used to in the case of Danzig/Gdansk). This vote should take place on a subpage of Talk:Ireland and be widely publicised.

In the case of Danzig/Gdansk, there were only two choices so a straight vote could determine the most preferred choice. In the case of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, there are many possible outcomes. I've taken a look at Masem's proposal above, but I don't see how it will lead to a genuinely preferred decision (or even how, at the end of, an indisputably conclusive answer could be drawn). As a consequence, I think a vote by PRSTV is the way to go. (PRSTV was recommended above by ras52 too.)

(For those unfamiliar with PRSTV, it is the electoral system used in Ireland. It's purpose is to determine the most preferred - not just the most popular - among multiple options. I've written a quick overview to how PRSTV works with an example.)

I have prepared a draft of the "ballot paper" for such a vote in my sandbox. The options I think are most likely are:

Ireland / Republic of Ireland (status quo)
Ireland as dab page → Ireland (island) / Ireland (state)
Ireland / Ireland (island)
Ireland / Ireland (state)

These can, of course, be added to or taken away from before a vote is run, but - obviously - once the vote is opened we cannot changed the options on the ballot.

I think the vote should be run over the course of one month. If we get broad agreement, why not start running the vote within next week? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing, you may have given me reason to rejoin the Ireland naming discussion 'fully', again. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, but I disagree with having the arguments written beneath each option. ~Asarlaí 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice proposal but having the arguments beside them is a bad idea. Just the options should be there.MITH 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take the arguments out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Done. I've removed the "arguments" from beneath the possible choices. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I would be explicit about what content is ending up where (possibly a table format). There's also technically a 5th option, being Dab + Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with this format to answer the basic naming question and leaving the other questions (what to distinguish Ireland (state) in article text)) --MASEM (t) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think the options should be a bit more explicit. I propose it be worded like this:

A) the island at ___ / the state at ___ / disambiguation at ___

etc etc

~Asarlaí 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If we went ahead with a vote just on the article name itself, what is going to happen about the other concerns raised like how it is mentioned in text. We need this resolved at the same time, there cant be a gap between the basic vote on where articles belong resulting in the articles being moved followed by weeks of debate about how to handle the new articles in text, during which we will see some editors going around removing Republic of Ireland from where there is a clear need to use the term to avoid confusion with the whole island. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the two votes should be taken at the same time. I suggest we use Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal as the basis of the second question (regarding usage in article text). ~Asarlaí 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be Ireland (Island) and Ireland (State)--De Unionist (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the options per Superfopp's suggestion. See sandbox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A vote on this single issue will not solve the dispute, since the dispute is much wider than this and covers references to the 26-county state in the texts of hundreds of other articles, and also articles about, e.g. "Politics of the Republic of Ireland". I therefore oppose it. The solution lies in a compromise between the article names and the other issues as per the Task Force. As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Republic of Ireland, I'm prepared for that to change in return for an agreement on the use of RoI elsewhere. In the absence of such an agreement, however, I will oppose the change of the current state article name. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said below. (Status quo) should not appear beside the voting options. In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?MITH 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?" No for much longer! I've taken it out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I think (and hope) that we all know that some instances of the description Republic of Ireland will be used within articles for disambiguation. That's one of the things the description can do. It can be helpful. I don't think there is much opposition to the occasional use of that term WITHIN articles for the purposes of disambiguation. There would be opposition to a POV that tried to use it massively throughout most articles (which would be some people's desire evidently). But in my view Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's sandbox poll, with its Single Transferrable Vote, is an excellent way of settling the naming question. Specific rules for when to use the term Republic of Ireland within articles can be worked out, but I would not like to see you or Mooretwin blocking progress because of this. Mooretwin, I can equally take your sentence and mirror it, with clarifications: As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Ireland, I'm prepared for it to be at Ireland (state) and understand that there needs to be an agreement on the use of Republic of Ireland elsewhere -- though its use must be restricted to instances of genuine ambiguity. Does that help? -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regaining some focus

We seem to have two proposals on the table at the moment — Masem's poll with three separate questions, and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll with just one question. Rannṗáirtí has very helpfully produced a page for his (though it might be worth moving that to a sub-page of this Wikiproject). Can I suggest that Masem does something similar? A lot of extra options have been proposed for Masem's poll, and I'm completely lost track of which ones Masem has agreed to add and which are not. Domer48 has repeatedly said that we use a mechanism that does not involve voting, and under the previous moderators there seemed to be consensus against voting. However to date, I have not noticed any proposals that don't involve voting and that actually stand a chance of yielding a result. I would therefore like to encourage Domer48 to come up with a formal proposal too.

Second, I notice that several users (including both moderators) have not signed up to the ground rules. I said in those ground rules that they wouldn't come into force unless they had a majority of support and if the two moderators subscribed to them by midnight Sunday. Can I encourage people, particularly the moderators, to do this; or if they don't wish to support it, to say why not. (If the moderators would prefer to discuss that with me off-wiki, my email address is on my user page.)

Thirdly, can I repeat BritishWatcher's plea that we try to focus on the process by which we are going to resolve this, rather than going round in circles reiterating the arguments for and against Ireland the state and Ireland the island? I've not seen any new arguments raised, and anyway, the time to discuss that is after we have sorted out the process.

Finally, and rather more trivially, would anyone object if some of this page was archived? It is getting really rather long. I would suggest that everything before 2.23 This is not what I signed up for could safely be archived.

—ras52 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comments, although id say archive everything from before we got the new moderators.. it was a fresh start we should of refreshed the talk page then. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will just comment that I have no problem with which poll, mine or Rannṗáirtí, just that I believe this is the path of least resistance to go forward; I have no strong ties to my own poll, and if Rannṗáirtí's is preferred, all the better. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive a good idea, agree.--De Unionist (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fmph (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I reserve the right to keen again if keening is warranted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Asarlaí's voting proposal

This combines elements of Masem's proposal and Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal.

Question 1: Under which titles should be placed the island of Ireland, the state of Ireland, and the disambiguation page for "Ireland"?

A) The island at Ireland / the state at Republic of Ireland (status quo)

B) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland (state) / disambiguation at Ireland

C) The island at Ireland / the state at Ireland (state)

D) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland

Question 2: In some articles there are occasions when distinctions should be made between Ireland-the-island, Ireland-the-state, and Northern Ireland. Where it isn't necessary to distinguish between these (for example in lists of sovereign states), the state should be referred to as "Ireland".

Where it is necessary to distinguish between these, what term should be used to describe the state?

A) Republic of Ireland

B) state of Ireland

Opinions? ~Asarlaí 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part is almost identical to the poll I posed, though formatted differently. The second part ... well ... it's a bit rulish, and most people won't adhere to it. But I guess if the result is community endorsed then it will be a good way of quenching edit-wars whenever the occur among users not familiar with the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On the second part, there was good support for BlueHairedLawyers' proposal (see above). We could run a simultaneous poll about that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, having a vote for or against that sort of statement explaining the ground rules for how to use Ireland in text i think is a fairer way and the vast majority would support it so it would be a much more solid agreement. The trouble with the above suggested poll is the large number who think the country article should be at Republic of Ireland will vote for that to be used in text, the large number strongly opposed to it will vote another way, simply creating more disagreement. We should try a vote on the sort of proposal mentioned above by coṁrá. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 2 cannot be poled. Only discussion can sort that out as Rannpháirtí anaithnid has pointed out above me. Also no need to put (status quo) in the vote.MITH 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again can I advise that separate polls on each issue are not organised as there will be no compromise and therefore no consensus. For example, if the above poll were run I would vote for A and A (no compromise). If a package is offered, however, I would have to accept a compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I always had supported a vote on Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal. Second, I assumed the poll would be using STV (ranking in order of preference)? ~Asarlaí 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Ireland (island) vs. Ireland (state) (split from above)

I cannot see what the problem is with Ireland (island) and Ireland (state)? Why do you oppose this Mooretwin, you must have some specific reservations which for the life of me i cannot recognise? Ireland is an island and Ireland is a recognised State so what's the difficulty. Certainly, I agree that we Irish, north and south, also use the terms such as the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland and the Free State daily in conversation and communication because that is what we all know it as.--De Unionist (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"I cannot see what the problem is..." Neither side can't. I can't see what's wrong with things as they are. We've been over and over this for years. See the archives on this page and many other, we've been through this time and time again. There's no point any more, we won't achieve a consensus. Let's just vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not until I get an answer to my question by anyone who disagrees with using Ireland (island) and Ireland (State). --De Unionist (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it inconveniences ALL readers who wish to find the Ireland article because it sends them to a disambiguation page. It also doesn't solve the dispute about referring to Ireland within other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We must recognize, Mooretwin, that initially it will take work for us to do a lot of piping. I'm willing to help with that. Once the piping is done, we can watch for Ireland links and pipe them as an ongoing task for the Wikiproject Ireland. Regarding the use of RoI as a disambiguator within articles, what is your proposal? (Make it again, here, succinctly. Do not point us back to months-old discussion on another page, please.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A bot could do all of that because it would simply be a case of changeling *all* [[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], *all* [[Republic of Ireland]] or [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]] then finally *all* (few) [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to [[Ireland]].

That's not the issue. The issue would be why would we move a page that got 1,763 hits last month (the dab page) over a page that got 200,905? There's no need for it. Nobody goes there. 151,456 people found Republic of Ireland quiet easily last month without it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Britannica solution"

IMHO Ireland is a primary topic (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at Republic of Ireland is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.) Some people are unhappy at the article on the state being at Republic of Ireland and would like it to be moved to Ireland (state). That would be fine by me. Dabbing the Ireland page would be my last choice, since it would introduce a needless step into the equation (everything you might need to know about Ireland is in the Ireland article, if you want to know more about specifically the state of the same name, go to article that deals with specifically with that).

Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution). From experience though it wouldn't work on WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't view the island as the primary topic but I'd strongly consider the Britannica option as a good potential solution.MITH 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the vote? (i.e. E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland in Ireland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend adding that as well as the option suggested by MickMacNee above (an Ireland article in addition to one about the island and one about the state). The benefit of STV is that providing more options (but not too many) can provide a clearer picture of what people are wanting; maybe it ends up that people's #1 picks are all over the place but #2 is one of these options - that might suggest a better consensus than the majority #1 if it's only by a few votes. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Although I don't really see the advantage of MickMacNee's proposal over Ireland/Ireland (state). Sounds like it would be just one more article to fight over to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done? Done where? What was done? -- Evertype·✆ 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposed "ballot paper" in my sandbox. I am amending it with suggestions from here. This all leads on from my proposal above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid the suggestion by MickMacNee's is basically the same as the one you suggested above, and considered a possible solution by both MitH and Masem. I would be in agreement with the "Britannica solution" which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). This Ireland article would then be subject to MickMacNee's suggestion, with a brief outline on each heading with disambiguation headings on each directing readers to the Article which deals with the subject in more detail. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I added MickMacNee suggestion to the "ballot paper" in my sandbox anyway. It would do no harm having it in a PRSTV vote. (I didn't mean to sound dismissive of it. Apologies to MickMacNee if I did.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited. ~Asarlaí 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Content of either article (island or country), being shifted to the other? is unacceptable. This is one bloke, who'll never consent to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If im reading the above right, I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be a single article on Ireland covering the state and island.. thats deeply offensive and will certainly not lead to consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher, a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go. There has to be a proper determination which could lead to a consensus. It is about time an Admin took a lead in this. --De Unionist (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend re-reading MickMacNee's suggestion again (however, this is not an endorsement, just that it seems a valid option to consider in a STV poll). That is, while an article on Ireland will be a mashup of the island and the state and likely older countries that have been on the island (eg Irish Free State), there will still have to be subarticles on the island proper and the 26-county state proper; it's not an attempt to merge these two. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how i read it although like i said i wasnt sure. I liked the idea mentioned yesterday or the other day about having a basic article covering everything about Ireland like is done with China and then a further article for the Island / State. But from the above conversation it sounded to me like an attempt to have a single article for both the island / state without sub articles being the main articles for the country / island. These options are going to have to be very well worded to avoid any misunderstanding. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is the option to have a single Ireland article, merging the island and state. I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll. That should give 6 options, which I think covered nearly every viewpoint stated here. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The merger proposal is different again from MickMacNee's proposal. It's based on how the Encyclopedia Britannia deals with the topic of Ireland i.e. they don't have an "island" article, their "Ireland" article is ostensibly about the state but deals with all of the stuff that is in our "island" article. The equivalent for us is to merge Ireland into Republic of Ireland then move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this proposed article (assuming we'll be keeping the country & island articles). Afterall, the China article would be a precedent for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have before me a 9 volume set called "A New History of Ireland". The first volume is "Prehistoric and Early Ireland", edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, and there is no ambiguity about Ireland. All 9 volumes deal with the concept of Ireland the island. But to note, in Volume 9 (the most useful one), where a list of offices holders, office holders of the Republic hold office in "Ireland" and ones in Northern Ireland in "Northern Ireland". Whatever change happens in this process, I hope there will be general agreement that before the break-off of most of the island from the United Kingdom, Ireland is not ambiguous, and that no-one will argue for absurdities like History of Ireland (island); but it is true to say that probably in most minds, the concepts of Ireland and the state of Ireland are more merged into each other than they are separate. It's just unfortunate that merging the two is so unoperable on wikipedia because wikipedia is so large and can easily accomodate both separately. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's too bad that all the island counties didn't support independence from the UK. Wikipedia could've done without the year-after-year disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears obvious that editors who were Polls apart, have reached or are reaching a consensus on the "Britannica/China solution." While no editor gets all they want, we all get to have an agreement which stays firmly within the framwork of Wiki. To continue now with a Poll which no editor really wants, flies in the face of the consensus staring stright at us. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

"...a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go." - De Unionis
"...such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited." - Asarlaí
"...strongly oppose the suggestion..." - BritishWatcher
"I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll." - Masem

Let's stick it in as an option for a STV vote. If it's is consensus then it will "win" hands down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a fair enough solution and I would give my endorsement to it also it appears some consensus is begining to form on this issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy and if we have consensus here can we not just take the next step and implement it instead of stalling and the whole affair becoming bogged down gain with endless arguments going nowhere. BigDunc^Talk 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure people are clear on what this so called consensus is even on. Theres the China way on wikipedia, where theres a general article about the area along with links to the main article about the country. I could support that idea with a general article about Ireland with links to Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Island articles.

However the "Britannica solution" if that is what some people are supporting is totally unacceptable and no consensus on this method will be formed. It is not acceptable to have just a single article on the Island/country, just the idea of it is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While editors are using terms like offensive to describe a possible solution we are at a total impass. This kind of loaded language is extremly unhelpful. Out of curiousity what is offensive about it? BigDunc^Talk 11:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to be clear about my thoughts on this matter and by some other comments above its clear there is no consensus on the "Britannica solution". Its offensive because the Republic of Ireland can not claim ownership over the whole island and its history. The ROI is not the only country on the island of Ireland there for why should they be combined. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that an editor who is a firm supporter of the imposition of the term British Isles onto Ireland can be offened by a solution because their unionist/loyalist POV, suppose you just have to laugh at the hypocrisy. BigDunc^Talk 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles is a geographical term just like Europe. Plenty of people do not like Europe here, it doesnt mean we are not part of Europe and can simply opt out of it. Having an article on the British isles does not prevent an article on the island of Ireland or the country, if it did then ofcourse that would be unacceptable. The Republic of Ireland does not include the whole of the island of Ireland, so i do not see how the "island" information can be combined with the sovereign state. In the case of Australia which is both a country and a continent its acceptable to have a single article, but Ireland is divided so the island of Ireland cant be combined with just one state. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Ireland the state has possession of 85% of the land of the island, and all of the seas around the island. Therefore Northern Ireland is actually inside Ireland the state and island. It is rather difficult for some to grasp/accept these precisions, and a consideration that would indeed justify the "one Ireland" article. Tfz 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first reasonable solution which does not go out side our policies, and a typical reaction by some editors. If a load of editors came on here to support this, all talk of a poll would go out the window. I'm not happy with it all, but the editors who want seperate article get them. What is wrong with the China article? I find myself in agreement with editors with which I'm polls apart on most issues to me that's progress! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus. Of the few editors that have offered and opinion, more have expressed a dislike for the "Britannica solution" that have said they are in favour of it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say consensus was achieved on this? Of the editors that expressed a dislike one is a new editor with 24 edits and a very strong POV that is currently blocked and suspicions of a sock have been muted about this editor too. But AGF their opinion is still noted. BigDunc^Talk 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid "consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus." In this discussion that is all I've had from one group of editors, saying they have a consensus but not one can show me were this discussion took place! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"ArbCom would like to see more collaboration from your part in particular." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid, slow down man, we will get this sorted in the end! However, I dont see any clear concensus - maybe a straw poll would help. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)

This "Brittanica" solution is only an option to be considered in a poll. I can tell from past discussion that it's not necessarily popular or editors' first choice, but it is a valid one to consider particularly in light of a STV-type poll. It should not be considered the target solution that everyone needs to agree on, just that it is one possible solution. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is brilliant. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vin, nothing wrong with a straw poll, but it seems some have only a poll in mind! Like I said, if there is a swing in numbers, we will see back tracking in addition to the digging in of heels that we are seeing. If twenty editors came here supporting it, I'll still be opposed to polling, Polling discourages consensus.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that if there was consensus to come to a common solution among all, that would definitely be preferable to polling. However, my judgement here is that there is an inseparable divide between at least two of the opinions given (and not 90/10-like split, we're talking 50/50), and the fact that this has existed since the start of the project means it is not going to go away anytime soon with a magical solution.

Which is why, as a moderator, I strongly back the polling effort over attempts to discuss the issue in circles over and over again. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're going nowhere. We've been here for six months. Where's another eight years in the archives of Talk:Republic of Ireland. The status quo is all we have but the dissenting voices are right, the status quo is not consensus. So even as someone who supports the status quo, let's take a vote on the options (the development of which, at least, has been a positive outcome of the past six months) and bind ourselves to whatever result there may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, my proposed option is not a simple merger of ROI/Ireland. That strikes me as wholly violating the NPOV by conflating the island with the state, and remember, Brittanica is probably just as concerned with saving paper as being neutral, so the comparison with what they do is weak. Sensible amounts of duplication does not harm us. The heart of the dispute is ambiguity, so none of the three proposed new articles of Ireland, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) will be a Primary Topic of Ireland per se, that description will be wholly dependant on context. But for completeness, a simple merger should be included in the vote if we are going to be using STV. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Britannica solution" is a "simple" merger. I put the "MickMacNee" solution on the ballot paper, but I don't really understand it. If we have a Ireland (island) article (as well as a seperate Ireland (state) article), what would the new article at Ireland be about? How would it be differet form out current Ireland article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the proposed article would be like the China article. There's the China articles & also the People's Republic of China & Republic of China articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that not what we have now? We have an Ireland article (like China) and there also the Republic of Ireland article (like People's Republic of China)? What would the third Ireland article be about? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the current Ireland is about the island. The suggestion seems to be that instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI etc then sub articles about the Island, country, and Northern Ireland. It does seem like that option is simply going to create even more duplication, keeping the island where it is would be the easiest solution (although the country article still would need renaming) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I will suggest the best course of action is that if this particular proposal is chosen, that we will want to spend some discussion to describe the bounds of it to keep duplication to a minimum after the vote. Think of it like the intersection in a Venn diagram, though, for purposes of the poll - it should describe elements of the island and the country (and it's past) that are normally associated with that body of land throughout time. (Again, I make no attempt to endorse this solution, only helping to clarify why I think it should be on the poll). --MASEM (t) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"...instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI..." Eh, but the current article is about those things. From it table of contents: Political geography ... Wildlife ... History ... The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland ... Northern Ireland ... Culture ... Science ... Sport ... Demographics ... Cities ... Transport ... Energy network ...

What would be differrent about the new article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well i presume it just wouldnt go into as much detail about things like Geography, wildlife etc which could be moved to its own article but i dont know. Its certainly going to need a detailed explanation if this is put to a vote so we know exactly what we are all voting for. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there two articles on Ireland?

Why is there two articles on Ireland? --CarolDonegal (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Confusing huh? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in England all my life, living in Ireland only four years that sounds crazy. Like most English people, on Ireland I was clueless. I live in Donegal, which is in Northern Ireland in Ulster. When my Mum and Dad said that I nearly died. Now I know there is Northern Ireland and there is Northern Ireland. Confusing? Well not as confusing as there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. They are the same thing! It would have to have been a man to come up with that one. If I want to read an article on Ireland, that is all I should have to look for. There is only one Ireland, and only one article needed. --CarolDonegal (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Republic of Ireland cover all of the island of Ireland? If you have lived in Northern Ireland obviously you know this is not the case there for how can there be a single article on different matters? I live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this country occupies the WHOLE of the island of Great Britain and yet there is still an article on both. Its not our fault the Republic of Ireland chose to name their country that of the Island.

Its also interesting to see this is ur first contributions here on wikipedia, i see the recent comments about lots of new users arriving to rig the poll is starting to come true. Will the Admins be doing regular Sock checks and banning those people trying to cheat? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She does live in Northern Ireland this actually shows an ambiquity with the name given to the 6 counties, Donegal is the most northern county in Ireland. For that matter Monaghan has a more northern point than almost half of the 6 counties Down, Armagh and Fermanagh. BigDunc^Talk 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland? I live in Northern Ireland, it is in Ireland. I do not live in the United Kingdom now, and I never called it United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name of the island is Ireland guys. Everyone in the world calls it that so lets stop being silly. I'm just a reader who wanted to get some information on Ireland, and I discovered there was two articles and a silly discussion. All I see is a small group of people playing a game saying there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Grow up please. --CarolDonegal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?" – actually, within the "six-counties", the "twentysix-counties" are never referred to as "Ireland". Whether they be republican/nationalist/unionist/loyalist, it's always referred to as "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic" or "the south". ~Asarlaí 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:OR Asarlaí you speak for the whole six counties do you? BigDunc^Talk 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just from my own experience. But if you ever go there I guarantee you'll find that to be the case (not that it makes a difference on Wikipedia). ~Asarlaí 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If I ever go there, do you know my history, my family history again a sweeping generalisation using YOUR experience and claiming it is the experience of the whole 6 counties. BigDunc^Talk 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was anything more than my own experience. All I'm saying is that, within the "six-counties", I've never seen/heard the "twentysix-counties" being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. ~Asarlaí 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I have heard it. BigDunc^Talk 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if its NEVER used in Northern Ireland, which we know is simply not true, we can all accept that the BBC and other British organisations rightly or wrongly do use the term Republic of Ireland so its not like this is being made up by a couple of editors here. If this is moving towards a vote by the way are we going to get everyone registered on the members page and ONLy allow those registered to vote incase we do get a flood of new users to swing the result? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh [1] and [2] two political parties in Northern Ireland use the term Republic of Ireland. Even the SDLP which want a united Ireland uses the term. [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And I sometimes call it "The South", it's neither here nor there. Don't see why BBC should hold any sway one way or the other, which is an arm of the British Government, who refused to recognise Ireland, and carried out an economic war against the fledgling state, so there is a "history" involved. We all know what the name is, and that it is described as a 'republic' in order to distinguish it from the monarchy that it once was. Let's move forward on this. Tfz 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC call the country the Irish Republic. Should that be considered as a title because they use it? If CNN decided they'd call the country "Paddy Land" should we acknowledge that also? The manual of style of the media from a particular country should have no effect on this process.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And ofcourse theres the fact that Irelands football team is actually called the Republic of Ireland [4][5] and people come here and lie through their teeth about it never being used and act like its a made up name on wikipedia. Ofcourse it is described as many things Tfz, but CarolDonegal came here saying its NEVER used. What a damn joke, i agree lets move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the football team is a completely different issue. Both teams on the island wanted to use the name Ireland. FIFA said none could have it and imposed a name on both team. Regarding the republic, it has no connection to the name of the country.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And the football team is the only thing I know called by RoI, and please stop accusing people of telling lies, it's considered disruption. Enough of 'oneupmanship'. Tfz 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ROI is a term nothing more it has no relevence to the name of the country Ireland. BigDunc^Talk 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is a term, that is all im saying (im not making a case for the article being there). I am just saying in respones to

"It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?"

That there are plenty of sources and examples of Republic of Ireland being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is not the official name of the state, but it is the official description of the state. End of story. Let's not debate this yet again. ~Asarlaí 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sectioned off this section as not particularly relevant to the one it was started in. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most Northern part of Ireland. It's seems like some guys want to say that the most Northern part of Ireland is in the South. That is how silly this is and can only be the product of a man's need to argue. The Ireland article is and should be about Ireland, but some guys from the North say NO, supported by some guys from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, guys leave your out dated politics at the door the world has moved on. --CarolDonegal (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most northern part of Ireland, yes. But your opening statement says Donegal is in Northern Ireland. Um, no. It's in northern Ireland - small 'n'. Subtle but important difference. Bastun^nutsaB 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So we need to disambaguate Northern Ireland as it is confusing for the reader. BigDunc^Talk 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they just need to know what state they live in? Bastun^nutsaB 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they know where they live it appears they are pointing out the need for diambag on the name Northern Ireland. IMO that name is more confusing to the reader than the claim being pushed that Ireland is. BigDunc^Talk 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe we need to worry about this case in order to narrow down what options to vote. Primarily, this is due to the fact that I see no articles that talk about the geographic regions of the 26-county state (in contrast to, say Southwestern United States); because of that, if a user was seeking info on "northern Ireland" (lower-case n), they would likely first end up on "Northern Ireland"; from there, a dab note or (as done now) a disambiguation page can point to the general article on the 26-county state due to lack of a specific geographic region article. Should that article ever be created, the dab would just have to be updated to refer to that. However, clearly, unlike the present disambiguation between "Ireland" for island and state, "Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK, so there would be no need to go through this lengthy process again. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK" ^{[citation needed]} Ireland has a single most common meaning in English, and every European contry. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because everyone who wants to move the article Republic of Ireland to the page Ireland seems to want to remove all the important stuff about the island. And says things like "The republic part is Ireland and the rest is not." Crazy, huh? (only read what OP DonegalCarol wrote, sorry) ~ R.T.G 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in response to Asarlai ("in the six counties people say Republic of Ireland") Well, outside of football, they practically never say that because they always say "Down south" or "Free state". ~ R.T.G 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This really doesn't make a difference on Wikipedia. But anyway... in newspapers, news programmes, radio stations and common speech, I've only ever heard/seen "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic", "the south" and "the twentysix-counties" being used. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" they'd be met with confused faces. ~Asarlaí 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Agreed the 'faces' and lol. ~ R.T.G 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote taking place on "British Isles" terminology

A poll is on at the BI-taskforce to see whether a compromise can be reached over the usage of the term "British Isles", at Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#Poll. Just incase you're interested. FF3000 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing at 2:00p.m. (BST), Thursday. FF3000 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Emerging consensus

There appears to be an emerging consensus that,
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
(2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title,
(3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state,
(4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.

Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm whilst i agree with most of the above, i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that ROI should be redirected to the country article. BigDunc^Talk 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears this emerging consensus is no where near consensus yet BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is where the RoI article must connect with, Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The very reason for this discussion page is for the untenable RoI situation be attended to. By "i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act." is fundamentally going against the reason why this page was set up in the first instance. By taking that stance, you are adopting the 'Status Quo' here at Wikipedia, which has been deficient thus far. This is why ArbCom will have to come in and make judgment on the true consensus. Tfz 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm im sorry but the status quo is still a possible outcome of this dispute although i find it unlikely that will happen. This is to do with where the article on Ireland the country belongs, no matter where it gets moved to that doesnt mean there is going to be some new article at Republic of Ireland. from previous debates ive seen on this matter ROI would continue to act as a redirect. If Arbcom wanted to come and have a look where we are right now, im sorry but they would not find consensus here yet, even if some seem urgent to declare it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the longstanding editors who have edited these articles over the years. Tfz

I generally agree with Tfz's numbered points above, except that I think that initially, RoI should be kept as a redirect to Ireland (state). Once we complete a cleanup run and change appropriate RoI links to I(s), we can re-point RoI to Republic of Ireland Act. That sound reasonable to anyone else? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In what sense is this 'apparent consensus' emerging? For the life of me, I can't see it. Fmph (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, several people have said we are close to consensus in the past few days, i must of missed it though because theres still some core disagreements. I dont have a problem with the country article being moved off of Republic of Ireland, however i strongly oppose this idea of having some different article at Republic of Ireland. It is a commonly known term for the country and deserves a redirect to where ever the country article goes, not just short term but always (considering its been at Republic of Ireland on here for years, we suddenly must now not even have it as a redirect??? seems crazy BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Ireland to be a DAB but if thats where the consensus is going, I would back it. I agree with BritishWatcher that "Republic of Ireland" should be a redirect to the country article rather than another article describing the ROI act. Regards . Redking7 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine, if it's got consensus. Except that Republic of Ireland should redirect to Ireland (state). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also agree, better than current. ROI could be a dab if it makes things easier --Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal except, like most others above, I would argue Republic of Ireland should redirect to Ireland (state) with a dablink to Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Rockpocket 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) So we leave the reader to think that ROI is the name of the country when it is not and the 1949 RoI Act is just forgotten about. Are we not supposed to inform the reader not just pander to pro british POV. BigDunc^Talk 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A DAP page on ROI would avoid any confusion there (it could make it clear that ROI is a description, something everyone agrees on. Equally a note at the top of the new Ireland(state) which says that ROI is the descrription and pipe-links to the 1949 act would work. --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A redirect would make it more clear instead of a note on the top of the article. BigDunc^Talk 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether, when a person types "Republic of Ireland" into the search bar, do they expect to be brought to an article on the declaration of the state as a republic or do they expect to be brought to an article on the state often called by that name (be it its official name or not)? I expect that, when a person types "United Kingdom" into the search bar, they expect to be brought to an article on that state, not an article on the 1801 Act of Union, despite "United Kingdom" not being the official name of the state. The same applies when a person types United States etc.

Why make life difficult for our readers for the sake of some pedantic argument? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Put the DAB onto the article on the act, it is factually correct and it informs the reader which is the purpose of wikipedia. BigDunc^Talk 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Rannpháirtí anaithnid has written above. If the article on the state is moved to a new title, Republic of Ireland should direct there. ~Asarlaí 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A new title you make it sound like we just made up a term, it is the correct name of the article and making ROI a redirect just perpetuates the lie that ROI is the name of Ireland it is not and should not redirect to Ireland. You are rewarding ignorance. Jus because someone ignorantly calls Ireland ROI doesn't mean we have to pander to this ignorance with a redirect. BigDunc^Talk 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the official description of the state. Nobody is claiming that's the official name. ~Asarlaí 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a very good point. UK doesn't redirect to 1800 Act of Union, United States doesn't redirect to United States Declaration of Independence and South Africa doesn't redirect to Constitution of South Africa. There are many other examples. In each case, these are not official names, but commonly used alternative names, abbreviations or descriptions of sovereign states. Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term. Can you justify why Republic of Ireland should be different? These sorts of redirects are not "rewarding ignorance" any more than redirecting misspelled terms to the correct article are. I have an idea, lets redirect Irland to Learn to spell. That would teach those ignorant bastards, eh? Rockpocket 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term." ^{[citation needed]} so obvious you'll reference it. This is a fact based discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a logic based assertion based upon a metric we can measure - edits. But lets not derail the "emerging consensus" on this issue. I'll happily continue to discuss this after the ROI article title is free to direct somewhere! Rockpocket 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an emerging consensus that, (1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc. (2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title, (3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state, (4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and (5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.

Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to move forward with TfZ's proposal because it appears to be an attempt to purge Wikipedia of the perfectly-legitimate and normal (in the real world) term "Republic of Ireland". I refer to this statement: My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. This is not compromise.

I oppose the move because it fails to deal with the fundamental issue of referring to the 26-county state in other articles, and also the titles of articles relating to the 26-county state and or the whole island.

I also oppose any move which involves dealing or voting separately with issues in the absence of an overall agreement about ALL issues.

The best compromise solution remains that put forward by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force.

Mooretwin (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, can you simplify your understanding of the "Ireland Disambiguation Task Force" proposal/s. Thanks. Tfz 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)